Spitfire, the legend, the facts and its opponent (3 of 5)

[wirikuta14]

th eguy commenting on the 109 cockpit must be some unpleasent fuck to be around with IMO.

[warp65]

I wonder why the Galland hood was not developed some more like the spits Malcolm version incorporating some side bulging?. Interesting cockpit critique, I suppose when its all you knew you lived, and died with it, but even then, most 109 pilots must have been aware of the excellent 190's office and wondered , "why this birdcage!".

[LoveeiCathyua722]

héh_í_fEël_sÒ_lÔñëlY_tODÄÿ

[SvenTviking]

A mk IX Spifire was faster, climbed better, dived faster, rolled quicker and turned tighter than ANY 109. Once they got negative G carburettors and two stage superchargers it was game over.

[functio1]

@SvenTviking - if that was really the case, then no more Spitfires would've been lost to Bf109s. That is, of course, not the case.

[SvenTviking]

@functio1 Er, no. There would still be tactical situations where the Bf109 would have the advantage, and also a superior pilot could make the difference. But a mk IX Spit was better than any 109, a mk XIV would eat em for dinner.

[functio1]

@SvenTviking - but, as always, it's the pilot not the plane that figures most in the final equation. The plane itself my lend some advantages, of course. But nevertheless, Spitfires continued to be lost to Bf109s until the end of the war. On it's own, the Spitfire was good but whether or not it could 'eat' anything was up to the pilot at the controls.

[SvenTviking]

@functio1 But I was talking about the equipment, not the pilot. From 1943 onwards the average RAF pilot was better trained than the average luftwaffe pilot. German policy of leaving experienced pilots on operations instead of resting them training recruits did not pay dividends. The 109 was obselete from the time the Focke Wulf 190 came into service.

[functio1]

@SvenTviking - the Bf109 was not obsolete at all. As a front-line fighter, it could still cope with the demands asked of it within the role it was designed for. Post-WW2 research has been very shoddy and led to alot of myths about them. More modern reseach has disproved these.

[SvenTviking]

@functio1 The 109 was obsolete because the FW190 was so much better. It should have replaced the 109 in production but the "Experten" would not allow it. Messerschmidt just piled more and more weight on the 109s small wings so the later marks lost maneuverability. Just one more error in the destruction of the luftwaffe.

[functio1]

@SvenTviking - sounds like you've been reading some old myths about the Bf109. Experten had no say over production lines nor output. Weight additions were not a significant problem at all (i.e. Finnish pilots could tell no difference between the G-2 and G-6), especially with more powerful engines to hand.

[SvenTviking]

@functio1 Obsolete even! Spellings going to hell today..

[SvenTviking]

Everybody says how advanced the DB601 engines were. But they were always behind in the race for more power. And all Merlins were given full services in the field. The Daimler benz engines had to go back to the factory for a full service.

[Xiolablu3]

8:11

[ripmax333]

 the 109 show in this video is the one known as BLACK 6?

[verysceptic1]

Paul Day seem to forget that Germans were physically smaller that Brits :)

[ninjacouncilguild]

errs gustavs didnt fly in BoB even i know that

[s6u6r6f6]

well done

[eus478]

lol at 2:32 : it´s a good 100% worse...

[baelsharon]

H mentions the cannon firing thorugh the propellor hub. This feature was not present in the BF 109 E that took part on the BoB.

That's cuz the the narrator says its a gustav and it iz

Hey!! Xio!! from the ubi zoo!!! ;)

[mmmsikim]

Wow, talk about critics and reviews, this one's interesting...

[ckolonko]

H mentions the cannon firing thorugh the propellor hub. This feature was not present in the BF 109 E that took part on the BoB. They had two MG FF cannons in the wings and the hole in the spinner was meant to offer extra cooling to the engine.

[Xiolablu3]

8m0s is interesting

[Bfdidc]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this.

[Nahojishere]

I really liked to se that, Nice vid!

Btw don't Paul Day look like Dr. Cox in Scrubs? xD

[DSCH4]

For the curious, the music at the start of this segment is from the second song of Orff's Carmina Burana (Fortune plango vulerna).

[Bullettube]

He should have mentioned that the Mercedes engine was actually upside down. (Or right side up if you were a German engineer!) This meant that the sparking plugs and fuel system was accessible from the ground. With fuel injection you didn't worry about the carbs starving for fuel in a long, steep climb or dive, nor was there any problem in tight turns. Quite a remarkable engine!

[terryjohn]

thats right  and it dived fasterand climbed better too.

tj

[Olfux]

I guess they were'nt too meaty, they did'nt want to look like Hermann the big boss!

[bravo45]

@Olfux hahahaha

good one

[trent8002003]

Horribly small cockpit. How did those meaty Germans fit into such measly space?

[leiker06]

most pilots werent very big. probably like 5'6 or 5'7, kind of like jockeys of the skies.

[trent8002003]

That's a poor yardstick for choosing pilots, no? They should be chosen on reflexes and handeye coordination and guts, not sizes.

[leiker06]

ok so what your saying is that if a guy is 6'6 and has amazing reflexes and handeye, and the guy that is 5'7 is ok, i should pick the 6'6 to be a 109 pilot. you can always develop handeye and reflexes. just back then cockpits werent very huge like today, look up how to eric hartmann was or even chuck yeager i dont think those guys were any taller than 6'0 or even 5'10 maybe.

[terryjohn]

some hans traulot 6ft.

thats tall guy.

tj

[bilbommer]

Read Helmut Lipfert's book and you'll see how bad field conditions were on the russian front

[sardosfish]

i don't understand why a lot of this bef 109 are in a USA.the same for zero and macchi!our story in usa hand!

[Olfux]

That must be because they in USA are'nt much interested in the difference between these three fine foreign aircraft - I suppose.

[penjo]

I think just because they were captured? They "won" and the losers had more important things to worry about than preserving warplanes. My family were from Greece (I am Canuck) and after the war and civil war people thought of getting food, shelter then rebuilding.

[AgCCannonFodder]

As many as 5% of all 109 losses were due to crashes at take off and landing. When you consider the number built, that's a lot of planes.

[Olfux]

You are perfectly right. It's an enigma, why they did'nt do the slightest thing to correct that bad designfault.

[functio1]

@AgCCannonFodder - 1500 were involved in landing accidents. This doesn't mean that they were lost, as unless the aircraft was more than 60% damaged, it could be rebuilt.

[AgCCannonFodder]

@functio1 Can't remember where I read it, but it did say they "Lost" about 5% in accidents, I guess there could have been many more accidents, but those leading to the machine being written off or "Lost" amounted to 5%. It was not specific so I really can't clarify any further sorry.

[functio1]

@AgCCannonFodder - they probably just read 'lost' in a literal sense, probably not knowing that aircraft would be bought back into service if not written off completely. Alot of 'research' and 'facts' written about the Bf109 post-WW2 was fell very short of the mark.